[Scons-dev] SCons-like build system

[Constantine]

Good results, Dirk.

It's definitely worth to use posix_spawn.
When do you plan to integrate the experimental version into the mainline?

/> .. including some hacks to exploit the uniform structure of the 
benchmark sources//../
What kind of hacks?
How do they affect performance?

I see great improvement in "Update (w/o changes)" build (up to 4 times 
faster), posix_spawn couldn't help here.


Thank you for testing the clean targets case.
I haven't tested this case on large projects.

Best regards,
Constantine.

On 02/01/15 21:53, Dirk Bächle wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On 27.01.2015 17:26, Kenny, Jason L wrote:
>> I think it is that Parts tries to use DB data smarter than SCons 
>> does. For me the understanding of the logic needed to validate that
>> something is good or bad with MD5 I believe is the item that I had to 
>> learned from SCons.
>> [...]
>>
>
> during the last few days I ran and profiled SCons for the 100k files 
> benchmark example, created by genbench.py from Aqualid's 
> "example/benchmark" folder. All the single runs were performed on a 
> COTS quad-core machine (4*AMD A8-6600K @ 1.9GHz) with 8GB RAM.
>
> For Aqualid 0.5.2 I get:
>
>   Clean build (-j 1)   = 12:37:53
>   Clean build (-j 4)   =  4:41:33
>   Update (w/o changes) =  0:00:59.77
>
> For the standard SCons 2.3.4:
>
>   Clean build (-j 1)   = 14:09:54
>   Clean build (-j 4)   =  5:38:46
>   Update (w/o changes) =  0:17:20.25
>   Update (max-drift=1) =  0:17:00.07
>
> For the experimental SCons version (switched Node class to slots + 
> stubprocess.py wrapper), including some hacks to exploit the uniform 
> structure of the benchmark sources, I could reduce this down to:
>
>   Clean build (-j 1)   = 10:58:50
>   Clean build (-j 4)   =  3:44:20
>   Update (w/o changes) =  0:08:38.38
>   Update (max-drift=1) =  0:04:27.77
>
> The much higher times for Aqualid in the parallel build (-j 4) come 
> from the processing order, which queues all library archiving to the 
> end of the build. This sent my machine thrashing/swapping, even though 
> it has 8GB RAM...SCons is better balanced in this case, it creates 
> each lib as soon as all its sources are compiled.
>
> I also ran a "clean/remove target" on a smaller project with 10k files 
> each:
>
>   Aqualid  (aql --clean) =  3:51.93
>   SCons    (scons -c)    =  0:19.94
>
> , this looks like a bug in Aqualid to me.
>
>
> Find attached the memory consumption for a "parallel clean build" (-j 
> 4) run with SCons...
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dirk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-dev mailing list
> Scons-dev at scons.org
> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist2.pair.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20150202/695b2c58/attachment.html>